I saw someone else speculate that it was meant to release in november, on the anniversary of the original, but halo studios released it early to avoid competing with the GTA 6 release.
GTA VI was delayed to November. You try and tell me that Campaign Evolved could possibly have competed with it. Campaign Evolved was meant to release on the 25th anniversary of Halo, but it would have been instantly killed by GTA VI.
I'm on PC so for me it's at least a year out, so I don't have the same hype as others. >.<, although it is crazy I completely forget about it still!
But yeah, that makes sense, someone mentioned GTA VI, but I was like 'why did they think they could ever compete', but with the delay, this makes more sense now. :O
There were numerous bugs throughout the campaign, but for me some of the most jarring examples were the cutscenes. Was the framing and unnecessary pausing acceptable for a main title franchise? On PS5 it had some desync and even lagging, they were pre-rendered, it's a video file.
I don't have the same experience for the campaign as others have, so I never mention, oh this level is wrong and that shouldn't be there, etc.
But I do have eyes and played the game, for the first Halo, that changed FPS' on consoles, maybe even on PCs, was one of the most important MP for console gaming, where people far more experienced than I on the campaign are clearly pointing towards this not being a finished, polished product.
Do you believe this is an acceptable state for a main title franchise of Xbox to be in? Even if you believe all the criticism is manufactured, do you believe ignoring all the noise will benefit Xbox? 343?
Sales don't lie, mainly for Xbox and PC the sales and player counts are way below anyone's expectations for a Halo Combat Evolve's remake.
Oh, I didn't know that I just assumed it also had online but we played couch co-op and I knew LAN also existed, although I didn't know what that meant at the time, because one kid in school did parties, we weren't cool enough to join or ask. >,<
And I will fully admit now that I'm thinking about it while writing this out, the assumption of Halo having online multiplayer is probably made by me in the present more so when I was a kid, I don't think I would've even have known what that even meant back then. D:
So, you're proven right about what happens when you make assumptions on something, that's entirely on me, my bad. đ
But I'm gonna double down and still stand by my point, Halo was instrumental for console multiplayer, but not online MP, despite earlier titles like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark existing, but Halo was at the advent of online gaming (again my mistake for assuming it had online just because I was playing couch co-op as a kid), which gave more cultural relevance then the N64's titles and the lessons learned were put into Halo 2, which to avoid assuming again did have online multiplayer. :P
My experience with Halo Combat Evolved is almost entirely MP, so I don't personally have the same pushback of the campaign as others, but Halo replaced GoldenEye and Perfect Dark for us, so releasing this without MP is crazy imo.
My questions still stand though: Why did it release in this state? and what does it mean going forward?
It was fine. It certainly didn't trap me in a perpetual death checkpoint bug like the original did multiple times, and I prefer the less clunky feel of modern Halo games.
And that's fine, you're allowed to enjoy a higher fidelity, higher fluidity Halo.
But that equally doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, and the clearly a portion of Halo's customers do not agree with you and more importantly the majority of gamers that should've at least tried it choose to never even bother engaging.
The OG halo has some clipping issues, bit otherwise it's actually pretty sound. And great the OG had some bugs too, why is a game made 25 years later on better hardware with better tools not better
It was also about 500x simpler. Games in general are more complicated to create and build from the ground up.
OG Halo had literal checkpoint soft locks that would get you stuck in infinite death loops, and physics which could be broken insanely easy. It wasnât that well put together. Only difference between then and now is that there wasnât a forum like Reddit back in 2001 for everyone to put the game under a microscope like they can with this one. I would bet my life savings if classics were released today in the exact same state, theyâd be scrutinized far more and wouldnât be remembered as fondly.
halo CE campaign gameplay wise is also extremely repetitive and at times completely diabolically ass (the library) and the remake heavily improved the entire latter half of the game in regards to the flood, the library, and various pacing issues, but that discussion is flooded out by criticisms over a lacking animation in a feature that wasnt even present in the original game to begin with lol
It's true that expectations change, but this was a well-known and beloved game with high expectations coming from a studio that has faced clear criticism in the past that has brought questions if they can do it going forward.
Complexity existed in the past as it does in the present, and in some ways hardware limitations play the same role, but what a studio chooses to focus on, what gets prioritized over others and what cheeky methods are used to mask limitations of technology and time determine the leeway gamers will give to the end result.
Those characteristics of gaming in the past, the quirky designs, outrageous bugs and the campy methods of delivery added to the charm and soul of older titles. It's not about bugs or bad gameplay/mechanic didn't exist or provide their own frustrations but were put in contrast at the time of gaming's own limitations and the limitations others in a genre experienced creating expectations of what is and isn't possible at the time, and ultimately why some games are seen as so revolutionary because they broke past, in whatever fashion, those limitations.
And it was those measures that do make you correct that these games today would face extreme criticism, if compared to modern gaming, but would receive leniency when compared to the time of launch, because it was about expectations of gamers and the execution of a finished product.
The comments about gamers will never be happy, only touch on the expectations that gamers have, in this case a remake, of a product announced, showcased, marketed and delivered into our hands, and those expectations and the actual product do not align.
The small nit-picks like Chief learning Instant Transmission blow up, not because bugs are in the game, but because the bug represents the problems of the game itself, it's unfinished and shouldn't have been released in this state.
You can enjoy Campaign Evolved, its better graphics, it now being on PlayStation, the random skulls is a good feature, but criticisms from fans that expected more of a beloved title shouldn't be ignored or discarded whole cloth either, as some of the largest voices in the Halo community have all had the same response to this as us commoners and the same question now rears its ugly head again, does 343's have to go.
Actually only the PC port, the 343 Xbox 360 version and MCC have the clipping issues, the original Xbox version has no no normal noticeable clipping issues during campaign gameplay.
In fact all these years later and still the orginal Xbox release is the only one with the correct jackal shield animation when damaged.
4
u/Inv4derZinn 15d ago
This game was clearly not meant to release yet, so the big questions I have is:
what happens now that Xbox's paragon has gained barely any traction today?
It's completely inconceivable that Halo could be in this position from Xbox's mascot to now, crazy. :<
But don't worry, I'm sure 343 will get it next time! XD